Solved Non-Binary gender option in profile customization

[RetroComputingCollector]

Are you, the moderators, able to customize the gender selection to add a non-binary option? I am not a man, not a woman, nor am I fluid between male or female. I am something else altogether and the current options don't exactly fit me.

 

[atax1a]

same tbh

 

[SirDice]

It's been added. I also like to stress it's not required to be filled in, it's entirely optional.

 

[atax1a]

unrelated, we think it's hilarious that there's still slots in the details for AIM handles

 

[SirDice]

Or ICQ, last time I used it was the late '90s. Though it existed for far longer than I expected. Yahoo Messenger, Google Talk and Skype don't exist anymore either. And Twitter is now named differently, although I personally still call it that. Should perhaps clean those out.

 

[JohnK]

I don't mean to piggyback on this thread but sort of related: I like the current option to not see people's signature on posts. I checked but didn't see an option to "not see their avatar"?
NOTE: This question is very much NOT important so, if the option is currently not there already, please do NOT add on my account.

 

[eternal_noob]

not see their avatar

You could add an own CSS rule if your browser allows that.

.contentRow-figure,
.node-extra-icon,
.message-avatar-wrapper {
    display:none!important;
}

Edit: Added some more avatar classes to be hidden.

 

[JohnK]

Ah nice idea. I can't do that at work unfortunately, but I can try on my laptop. I had to search for how to do that on my browser and I was actually linked to a youtube tutorial--'youtube'? *sigh*

 

[eternal_noob]

I had to search for how to do that on my browser and I was actually linked to a youtube tutorial

This video thing has really become a bad habit. It's just silly.

 

[Espionage724]

.

 

[jnalli]

Or ICQ, last time I used it was the late '90s. Though it existed for far longer than I expected. Yahoo Messenger, Google Talk and Skype don't exist anymore either. And Twitter is now named differently, although I personally still call it that. Should perhaps clean those out.

ICQ?! Brings back memories.

 

[scottro]

eternal_noob. I have to jump on the video thing. Last night, bored, I was going through youtube--I sometimes watch various old boxing matches. Anyway, someone had a video, over an hour long, that was just a still photo or two, telling the story of a 5 minute fight (that probably never happened) between a boxer and martial artist, both well known and with no mention of it anywhere else, which is why I think it was made up.

Anyway, after I glanced through that, (holding the mouse on the thumbnail has it go though the captions, and you can move your mouse to jump ahead in the video), now I'm getting a bunch of similar things--that is, a thing that should take a minute or two to read about, drawn out to 20 or 30 minutes, and no other proof that it happened, for example something political where a congress person told off another and according to the captions, shocked the world, but there's no other mention of this on any main news sites.

Or 40 minute videos about how this 3 minute technique can fix your leg pain, etc. I've found the best way to get through any of these is to set the speed for 2x, turn off the sound and read the captions, but even doing that, they're generally wastes of time.

It does seem that more and more, when one searches for an answer to something, the results are often videos--and worse, time wasting videos, and worse still, where you have to go through 10-15 minutes to realize they're wastes of time.

I realize that some people do learn better from videos, vs reading, but I'm not one of 'em.

Ok, old guy is done yelling at cloud.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

scottro A lot of written articles are like that,too. The title may be interesting but they go through a complete history of the subject along with a lot of direction to other related subjects--mostly links to other articles on the site for SEO purposes--before they get to the actual subject which, too often, is a non-answer. Like, no you can't do that or "who knows?".

 

[scottro]

True, but it's far easier to skim an article than a video. Even with my method of running the video at 2x and just reading the captions, I can get the gist of a written article far more quickly.